Young v. State
86 So. 3d 541
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Young was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder with a firearm and robbery with a firearm in 2006 and sentenced to concurrent life terms with a 25-year minimum.
- Following direct appeal, Young filed a timely Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 postconviction motion raising fourteen grounds for relief.
- Ground three argued the count two sentence was illegal because the information did not charge discharge of a firearm, only possession of a firearm during robbery.
- The State conceded the information failed to allege discharge, requiring a ten-year minimum under 10-20-Life, but the postconviction court denied relief.
- The court relied on inference from count one to support count two, which this court rejected, stating enhancement under 775.087(2) must be clearly charged.
- Ground eleven claimed jail credit was owed for time served; the postconviction court dismissed it without prejudice, but jail credit can be raised in 3.850 petitions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether count two's information properly charged discharge of a firearm | Young contends the information lacked discharge element for count two. | State concedes information did not allege discharge; admissible to convict only on possession. | Remand; reduce count two minimum from 25 to 10 years. |
| Whether sentence enhancement under 10-20-Life can be applied without explicit charging | Enhancement requires explicit charging of discharge in information. | Discharge finding by the jury and statute number in information could cure defect. | Inappropriate; must be clearly charged in the information. |
| Whether jail credit for time served was properly presented and actionable in a 3.850 motion | Young is entitled to four years and four days jail credit based on jail records. | Claim dismissed without prejudice; not properly raised in 3.850. | Remand for merits; possible grant of jail credit or evidentiary development. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. State, 916 So.2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (clear charging required for 10-20-Life enhancements)
- Whitehead v. State, 884 So.2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (inference cannot cure information defect)
- Gill v. State, 829 So.2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (proper styling of motion governs treatment of claims)
- Davis v. State, 884 So.2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (10-20-Life minimum terms require precise charging)
- Blake v. State, 807 So.2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (jail credit issues raised in 3.850 motions when supported by factual matter)
- Cabrera v. State, 62 So.3d 1171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (facially sufficient claim under 3.800(a) may be raised in 3.850)